Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.

1. Petition seeks for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioners 1 to 4, who are accused 5, 6, 9 and 10 in Crime No. 182 of 2013 on the file of Renigunta Police Station, Chittoor District. The petitioners allegedly committed offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 354-A, 384 and 471 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail or not consequently falls for consideration. Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the beneficial provision under Section438 Cr.P.C., granting right to the Court to grant anticipatory bail deserves to be saved. The Supreme Court observed in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, that Section 438 Cr.P.C., was enacted to meet the challenge of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that since the denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the Court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C., more so when such restrictions were not imposed by the Legislature.